Latest national-security threat: on-line retirees

HKFP reports…

A Hong Kong court has sentenced a 68-year-old retiree to eight months in jail for sedition under the city’s homegrown security law, after the man published more than 100 Facebook posts criticising authorities and calling for a boycott of last year’s legislative polls.

Lam Chung-ming pleaded guilty on Friday to one count of “knowingly publishing publications that had a seditious intention” under the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance – known locally as Article 23 – according to local media reports.

…Prosecutors accused Lam of inciting hatred against police, the judiciary and government officials, as well as inciting a boycott of the “patriots only” legislative elections in his Facebook posts. According to the prosecution, some of his posts contained references such as “black cops” and “black judges” – with “black” alluding to corruption.

…Lam’s Facebook account had only about a dozen friends and each post received little reaction, his lawyer added, reflecting the limited impact of Lam’s posts.

Is this an amazingly good use of taxpayer’s money or what? I wonder how the authorities can even find someone whose social media account has only a dozen followers – who aren’t responding to his posts. (They might not even be alive. Who – other than bots – is using Facebook anymore anyway?)

If you are a 61-year-old urging people not to vote, you might get a suspended sentence…

Bonney Ma, 61, was sentenced on Wednesday to two months in prison, suspended for 18 months, after she pleaded guilty to one count of inciting others not to vote in the run-up to the legislative race on December 7, according to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

…During the hearing last week, Magistrate Peter Yu said the case was serious because it concerned the elections, adding that any illegal acts relating to the polls would negatively affect Hong Kong.

While Ma may have shared the post after only a brief glance, the court must take into consideration that the public could be exposed to its message, Yu said.

Exposed to what sort of message? As many have pointed out in bewilderment before: it is legal to not vote, yet it is illegal to urge others not to – even though it is legal to urge them to vote. Is it part of judges’ job to detect absurd or illogically worded laws, or do they just assume that any legislation must by definition be totally coherent?